H is not happy with sex only once a week

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The lower sex drive person will ALWAYS perceive sexual communication/advances as whining.

If she's a SAHM, then tell her she's whining when she wants some money unless, of course, along with your chastity cage, she has full access to finances.

You kind of hate women, don't you?

There's no hate there. He is providing. She has a place to live. Food. Clothes. Shelter. A car. Why does she need EXTRA money? That's just whining.

You're conjuring a hypothetical wife who is a SAHM to create a strawman argument.

If that's your example of how you think you women are, you don't like women much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, how do we distinguish "communicating about inadequate sex frequency" from "whining"? The tone of the earlier posts about "whining" suggests that pretty much all communication on the issue will be regarded as "whining" (and, in fact, I got the impression that the PP didn't regard sex as a need in any real sense.) But, tone can be kind of tricky online, so maybe I'm misreading.

You're misreading. I've said "compromise" a bunch of times. If you want a compromise, you have to put what you want out there.

Part of the problem with asking for more sex is how it's asked. People who ask for more sex don't say "I want more sex." They say "You never want to have sex with me." and then follow it up with contempt and criticism -- you're rejecting me, you don't love me, you are cold, you hate sex.. They turn the lack of sex into something more fundamental than just lack of sex. They ascribe it to the other partner not loving them or hating sex. None of those things may be true.

It's also when it's asked. They also tend to ask about it or bring it up in the heat of the moment - one partner approaches, the other partner declines, and the first partner starts bitching about it. Now it's a fight, instead of sex.

Breakfast or over a meal is a better time to talk about it. Stick to "I" statements. "I want more sex." "I miss when we had sex every day." "I miss that thing we used to do." "I would like to find a way to have more sex with you." If the low drive person says they can't possibly, you need to listen to their objections and try to help find ways around those objections. Make sure they tell you why they can't and listen, if you're going to negotiate a compromise.

You sure seem to think you know everything about what it's like for one spouse to try to tell another spouse about their sexual needs.

BTDT

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So many low sex drive people suggest that sex is a want, not a need.

In that same respect, if you're well provided for (home, food, transpiration, etc.), then any extra money is a want, not a need.

Funny how the WANT of money gets people going, but the WANT of sex is thrown aside.

Low drive people need to just couple with each other. Fucking wastes.

I don't disagree with that. If the low drive partner wants more money, he/she should get out there and earn it.

If you want more sex, you should earn it or get out there and find it from someone who will give it to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's whining. Other people are not obligated to fulfill your physical and emotional needs.

Turn it around. You are expecting that person to have sex with you, even when they don't feel it and don't enjoy and don't want to. This is a huge imposition and feels emotionally gross. It's an emotional and physical need for that person to have sex less often than you want it. You are demanding that they abandon their physical and emotional needs to fulfill yours. You are bitching about it when they don't. That's super-whiney.

A mismatch couple either has to come to a compromise or divorce. You clearly think your needs trump your partner's needs, so divorce was the only option.

If my emotional needs don't matter to my partner, what's the point in trying to continue a relationship? If someone didn't care about my need to be treated with respect, my response would be the same.

Low drive partners aren't upfront about their needs, in my experience. I always make it clear early on how important a healthy sex life and intimacy is to me. I feel lied to if they unilaterally decide it just isn't important anymore.

You don't deserve to have your "emotional needs" respected because you don't have respect for your partner. Being required to have sex when you don't want to because the other partner is having an emotional meltdown about it and is throwing a temper tantrum isn't respectful of your low drive partner's needs.

If you can't come to compromise, then you are better off divorced and so is your partner.

As for me, I've been married 23 years in a marriage that ended up with very mismatched sex drives after the kids got here. We compromised and found a way to keep it together, with everyone putting in an effort to make it work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's whining. Other people are not obligated to fulfill your physical and emotional needs.

Turn it around. You are expecting that person to have sex with you, even when they don't feel it and don't enjoy and don't want to. This is a huge imposition and feels emotionally gross. It's an emotional and physical need for that person to have sex less often than you want it. You are demanding that they abandon their physical and emotional needs to fulfill yours. You are bitching about it when they don't. That's super-whiney.

A mismatch couple either has to come to a compromise or divorce. You clearly think your needs trump your partner's needs, so divorce was the only option.

If my emotional needs don't matter to my partner, what's the point in trying to continue a relationship? If someone didn't care about my need to be treated with respect, my response would be the same.

Low drive partners aren't upfront about their needs, in my experience. I always make it clear early on how important a healthy sex life and intimacy is to me. I feel lied to if they unilaterally decide it just isn't important anymore.

You don't deserve to have your "emotional needs" respected because you don't have respect for your partner. Being required to have sex when you don't want to because the other partner is having an emotional meltdown about it and is throwing a temper tantrum isn't respectful of your low drive partner's needs.

If you can't come to compromise, then you are better off divorced and so is your partner.

As for me, I've been married 23 years in a marriage that ended up with very mismatched sex drives after the kids got here. We compromised and found a way to keep it together, with everyone putting in an effort to make it work.

But it's okay for high drive partner to have their emotional needs neglected?

It's pretty simple to see on this thread who are high drive and who are low drive based on the responses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many low sex drive people suggest that sex is a want, not a need.

In that same respect, if you're well provided for (home, food, transpiration, etc.), then any extra money is a want, not a need.

Funny how the WANT of money gets people going, but the WANT of sex is thrown aside.

Low drive people need to just couple with each other. Fucking wastes.

I don't disagree with that. If the low drive partner wants more money, he/she should get out there and earn it.

If you want more sex, you should earn it or get out there and find it from someone who will give it to you.

You can't earn sex. (Or at least the kind of sex you can earn isn't the kind that fills your emotional needs.)

I point this out because there are a lot of bitter high drive spouses who are frustrated not just about the lack of sex but also because they think sex can be earned and that they've done enough to earn it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You don't deserve to have your "emotional needs" respected because you don't have respect for your partner. Being required to have sex when you don't want to because the other partner is having an emotional meltdown about it and is throwing a temper tantrum isn't respectful of your low drive partner's needs.

If you can't come to compromise, then you are better off divorced and so is your partner.

As for me, I've been married 23 years in a marriage that ended up with very mismatched sex drives after the kids got here. We compromised and found a way to keep it together, with everyone putting in an effort to make it work.

First of all, your perpetually dismissive characterization of a spouse trying to get their sexual needs met as being childish (e.g. "whiny," "temper tantrum") reflects a huge blind spot. Because your sex drive disappeared, you seem to regard the needs of others in that respect as something trivial and foolish rather than a substantial and intrinsic part of the human experience - like a blind person sneering at art as so much doodling by people who really ought to be doing something more productive.

Secondly, your statement that your drives became mismatched after the children suggests that the lowering of your drive was the change in the sexual status quo. I don't know you and I'm obviously speculating, but it looks like your attitude about the sex drives of others may be sour grapes and/or an attempt to minimize your appreciation of how much pain the change in the status quo might be inflicting on your husband.

Compromising isn't a bad thing -- it might be the only alternative to divorce. Nobody can be blamed for their base line sex drive, only the effort they put into matching their drive to their spouses. But, if you regard the need for sex as childish, how motivated can you be to put forth that effort?

[Anonymous]

It's not childish to say being rejected hurts. It's not childish to say it damages the relationship. That's honesty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You don't deserve to have your "emotional needs" respected because you don't have respect for your partner. Being required to have sex when you don't want to because the other partner is having an emotional meltdown about it and is throwing a temper tantrum isn't respectful of your low drive partner's needs.

If you can't come to compromise, then you are better off divorced and so is your partner.

As for me, I've been married 23 years in a marriage that ended up with very mismatched sex drives after the kids got here. We compromised and found a way to keep it together, with everyone putting in an effort to make it work.

Compromise means the low drive partner making effort to have sex more frequently while the high drive partner accepts less frequent encounters.

Your other posts indicate you see "compromise" as the high drive partner accepting the status quo

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DH here with very high sex drive who has had this issue w DW for a long time.

My take: you are both wrong. He is a douche for threatening to stray. You, OTOH, have to also compromise. My own DW is lucky I've neither strayed nor left, but I've also never given an ultimatum (though she's hinted that she would be OK with me fucking someone on the side purely for sex, not in our house -- IMO the day that happens the marriage is over regardless).

You both have to move on this IMO.

LMAO, hilarious. Does your wife agree?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's whining. Other people are not obligated to fulfill your physical and emotional needs.

Turn it around. You are expecting that person to have sex with you, even when they don't feel it and don't enjoy and don't want to. This is a huge imposition and feels emotionally gross. It's an emotional and physical need for that person to have sex less often than you want it. You are demanding that they abandon their physical and emotional needs to fulfill yours. You are bitching about it when they don't. That's super-whiney.

A mismatch couple either has to come to a compromise or divorce. You clearly think your needs trump your partner's needs, so divorce was the only option.

If my emotional needs don't matter to my partner, what's the point in trying to continue a relationship? If someone didn't care about my need to be treated with respect, my response would be the same.

Low drive partners aren't upfront about their needs, in my experience. I always make it clear early on how important a healthy sex life and intimacy is to me. I feel lied to if they unilaterally decide it just isn't important anymore.

You don't deserve to have your "emotional needs" respected because you don't have respect for your partner. Being required to have sex when you don't want to because the other partner is having an emotional meltdown about it and is throwing a temper tantrum isn't respectful of your low drive partner's needs.

If you can't come to compromise, then you are better off divorced and so is your partner.

As for me, I've been married 23 years in a marriage that ended up with very mismatched sex drives after the kids got here. We compromised and found a way to keep it together, with everyone putting in an effort to make it work.

It's ok for one partner to decide sex isn't important any longer?

If one partner decided 50/50 parenting wasn't important anymore and decided to make it 90/10, is that ok too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am just not in the mood more than once per week. He says he's going crazy and will soon start to stray if things do not pick up.

We've been together for more than 10 years and we've NEVER had an active bedroom life (read twice per month, sometimes with long stretches of career-related absences). So what we have now is really intense compared to our history. I have no clue what has gotten into him suddenly. Any insights?

Seriously? Ewwwhhhh, this is a major turnoff. I don't think that sounds like a very devoted and reasonable husband!! He is threatening you and basically saying if things dont go his way...you will pay. I would show him the door.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am just not in the mood more than once per week. He says he's going crazy and will soon start to stray if things do not pick up.

We've been together for more than 10 years and we've NEVER had an active bedroom life (read twice per month, sometimes with long stretches of career-related absences). So what we have now is really intense compared to our history. I have no clue what has gotten into him suddenly. Any insights?

[b]Seriously? Ewwwhhhh, this is a major turnoff. I don't think that sounds like a very devoted and reasonable husband!! He is threatening you and basically saying if things dont go his way...you will pay. I would show him the door.

Seriously? A major turnoff? They have sex a few times a month plus more time outs for "career related absences". Hard to imagine anything else turning her off any more.

Seems DH knows where the door is. He's giving his final notice that if there is no flexibility, he has the map.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You don't deserve to have your "emotional needs" respected because you don't have respect for your partner. Being required to have sex when you don't want to because the other partner is having an emotional meltdown about it and is throwing a temper tantrum isn't respectful of your low drive partner's needs.

If you can't come to compromise, then you are better off divorced and so is your partner.

As for me, I've been married 23 years in a marriage that ended up with very mismatched sex drives after the kids got here. We compromised and found a way to keep it together, with everyone putting in an effort to make it work.

First of all, your perpetually dismissive characterization of a spouse trying to get their sexual needs met as being childish (e.g. "whiny," "temper tantrum") reflects a huge blind spot. Because your sex drive disappeared, you seem to regard the needs of others in that respect as something trivial and foolish rather than a substantial and intrinsic part of the human experience - like a blind person sneering at art as so much doodling by people who really ought to be doing something more productive.

Secondly, your statement that your drives became mismatched after the children suggests that the lowering of your drive was the change in the sexual status quo. I don't know you and I'm obviously speculating, but it looks like your attitude about the sex drives of others may be sour grapes and/or an attempt to minimize your appreciation of how much pain the change in the status quo might be inflicting on your husband.

Compromising isn't a bad thing -- it might be the only alternative to divorce. Nobody can be blamed for their base line sex drive, only the effort they put into matching their drive to their spouses. But, if you regard the need for sex as childish, how motivated can you be to put forth that effort?

One of the best posts ever deposited in DCUM, IMO, of course. It is a lot easier to be dismissive of those things not important to us, and minimize the importance to the spouse. There are hundreds of these conflicts every day, but most of them are on a small scale. Sex, intimacy, and affection is a huge deal, though. Hard to accept that if you're the spouse being told your needs are childish and unimportant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am just not in the mood more than once per week. He says he's going crazy and will soon start to stray if things do not pick up.

We've been together for more than 10 years and we've NEVER had an active bedroom life (read twice per month, sometimes with long stretches of career-related absences). So what we have now is really intense compared to our history. I have no clue what has gotten into him suddenly. Any insights?

Seriously? Ewwwhhhh, this is a major turnoff. I don't think that sounds like a very devoted and reasonable husband!! He is threatening you and basically saying if things dont go his way...you will pay. I would show him the door.

No, it is merely clear communication. If one spouse is miserable in their marriage for whatever reason, it is probably for the best to be honest about that fact.

Also, what I don't understand is that if one partner has simply lost interest in sex, why they insist on monogamy from their partner. That seems a little unfair to me.